After The Pirate Bay snagged IFPI.com and converted it into the "International Federation of Pirate Interests," the real IFPI vows to fight them legally. The 'Bay is ready and insists it has done nothing wrong.

1. IFPI should have sued the original squatter months ago. they'll be shown to have lost the right to sue because they failed to protect their interests at all times (which is why some companies fire off infringement letters to everyone using their marks fair use or not)

2. the very fact of the nature of pirate bay will cause PB to lose the site. the content and association combined could cause the confusion

I dont see how the pirate bay can lose. They clearly labeled the site so you cant really claim confusion. You also cant trademark an abbreviation. So using ifpi is fair game. Now if the site looked like the ifpi.org site, then they would have a case. As is, the pirate bay should get to keep the site.

1. IFPI should have sued the original squatter months ago. they'll be shown to have lost the right to sue because they failed to protect their interests at all times (which is why some companies fire off infringement letters to everyone using their marks fair use or not)

2. the very fact of the nature of pirate bay will cause PB to lose the site. the content and association combined could cause the confusion

I don't see how the second thing can come true. The Pirate Bay is going to open their own site, with the same acronym as the IFPI run by the music companies...... so what? This isn't a case of 'cybersquatting', it's more a case of the Pirate Bay turning the IFPI's own methods against them!

Originally posted by TechGeek:I dont see how the pirate bay can lose. They clearly labeled the site so you cant really claim confusion. You also cant trademark an abbreviation. So using ifpi is fair game. Now if the site looked like the ifpi.org site, then they would have a case. As is, the pirate bay should get to keep the site.

IFPI only had the name in the first place to squat on it so no one else could use it. They obviously weren't updating it or using it commercially so I say they lost the right to bitch about it now. Trademarking acronyms is as dumb as Paris Hilton trying to trademark that's hot.

If anyone of us left a site dormant like that an it fell in someones hands we didn't like, it'd just be too bad for us, same should be true of them.

I'd have to think the fact that the IFPI let the domain lapse would count heavily against them. Typically cybersquatting involves beating an entity to a domain they feel they have some claim to. Here, the IFPI ostensibly decided they didn't care about the domain. They let it go. They even say that their site, the .org site, is running fine. They wanted .org, but apparently not .com - until now.

I'm not sure what you meant by that, but as I understand it the WWF did lose anything to the WWF..

The WWF (World Wildlife Foundation) and the WWF (World Wrestling Foundation) had an agreement the the Wrestling guys could use the WWF name for a set period of time, and then would have to change. So the WWF didn't attack the WWF like IFPI is going after PB.

It seems like the IFPI would have had a case against the original squatter, but less of one against Pirate Bay. The anti-squatter clause is designed to prevent squatters from buying up a domain with the intent to extort the mark holder into purchasing it off them. If Pirate Bay has no interest in doing this and is rather hosting their own site, then I am not sure that the squatter provisions are relevant.

I don't support pirates in their actions in regards to piracy. However, in all fairness, I would have to rule from the evidence that the original ifpi screwed the pooch, and they've (the pirates) got the .com domain fair and square, with zero attempted subterfuge. It just happens that the initials are the same, but hey, how many organizations have the same initials? Since the pirate group isn't remotely trying to pass themselves off as the past owners of the site, and especially considering just how cheap and easy it is to automatically renew domains (only a few bucks per year, and registrars are only too happy to put you on auto-renewal, given a card number) I sincerely hope that the pirate group wins, to make a point that you can't afford to take such things for granted.

1. IFPI should have sued the original squatter months ago. they'll be shown to have lost the right to sue because they failed to protect their interests at all times (which is why some companies fire off infringement letters to everyone using their marks fair use or not)

2. the very fact of the nature of pirate bay will cause PB to lose the site. the content and association combined could cause the confusion

I don't see how the second thing can come true. The Pirate Bay is going to open their own site, with the same acronym as the IFPI run by the music companies...... so what? This isn't a case of 'cybersquatting', it's more a case of the Pirate Bay turning the IFPI's own methods against them!

As the poster says, it is the very nature of The Pirate Bay that might swing the vote in IFPI's direction. No matter what we may think of the recording industry they are a legitimate business association fully backed by the legal system. TPB on the other hand is a political protest-group operating on the edge of the law who is using the situation for provocation. There was no International Federation of Pirate Interests before they got their hands on that domain.

Blackwater is not subject to the law of the country they're operating in.

Pirate Bay is subject to the law of the country they operate in, and the courts there has deemed them legal. That's no grey area at all, they have been tried, and found legal. There's no "grey areas" in law. Whether what they do would be illigal in other countries is irrelevant.

Originally posted by Ragashingo:Couldn't the Pirate Bay just put up a graphic on the site that says "If you're looking for the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry click here" in big letters with a pretty badge?

That would prove they have no intent to confuse...

I know it would be childish, but making the word "phonographic" in the link an animated GIF that switched to "pornographic" for one frame every 20 seconds would be too great a temptation to resist.

If the Phonographic IFPI wins over the Pirate IFPI, I'm going to run out and trademark a whole slew of acronyms, and see what domains I can force people to stop using... I mean really, that's just how stupid this is. "Our initials are IFPI, so you can't use ifpi.com even though your initials are IFPI too." Absurd. And the people at TPB seem to really know what they're about, legally speaking. So far as I know, they've never lost a legal dispute, despite endless legal bullying.

Originally posted by Ragashingo:Couldn't the Pirate Bay just put up a graphic on the site that says "If you're looking for the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry click here" in big letters with a pretty badge?

Originally posted by Crazy Diamond:If you can't trademark an abbreviation, why would World Wresting Federation have need permission from World Wildlife Foundation to use WWF?

According to Wikipedia because they had signed a prior agreement in 1994 with the World Wildlife Fund agreeing to limit their use of the mark overseas and a court found they were in violation of that agreement. It wasn't normal law that stopped them, it was an agreement they had made in the past.

As the poster says, it is the very nature of The Pirate Bay that might swing the vote in IFPI's direction. No matter what we may think of the recording industry they are a legitimate business association fully backed by the legal system. TPB on the other hand is a political protest-group operating on the edge of the law who is using the situation for provocation. There was no International Federation of Pirate Interests before they got their hands on that domain.

Sure there was. They were just waiting to get a cool domain name.

Anyway, you snooze, you loose. They had it did not use and let it expire. How it got to tPB is not important IMO but mark my words that is exactly what the IFPI will try to focus the case on. Simply put the "squatter" gave it to them so by extension it should be given back to us -etc...

They [tPB] had better get some real content on the .com so however just affirm they are serious about the organization and not doing a political stunt no matter how cool it is.

They could sell pirate related items such as hats and t-shirts. Totally legitimate business, and they acquired an existing .com that became available when it was no longer used.

Hell, if IFPI.org wins this, then it sets up a whole new series of name exploitations since all any company would have to do is register the .com once, then let it go (never pay again). All they have to do is say that the new (completely legitimate) user of the name is a squatter and should give it back.

It means that the first purchaser has permanent rights to the .com, which would be absurd.

Originally posted by 4corners:Yet another story first reported by Wired News then followed on by Ars without noting others were there first.

Given the general practice of citing sources here at Ars, it seems unlikely to me that they saw it at Wired, repeated Wired's coverage, and then failed to cite Wired as a source. There are other ways of hearing about news, even this sort, than reading Wired, after all.

Originally posted by Hinton:Pirate Bay is as legitimate as any other company, if you think otherwisee, explain.

"operating on the edge of the law"

What the hell are you talking about? Work for some large dumbass corporation much?

Please note that I didnt write "outside" the law but "on the edge" of the law.

By that I mean that the TPB-guys constantly are going right to the limit of what they can get away with legally - and sometimes even pushing the boundary a little into the legal gray-zones. They do this deliberately because their ultimate goal is to get the laws changed but it has also branded them as provocateurs in the eyes of many. Thus it could very well happen that ICANN would see the purchase of the domain as an attempt to provoke IFPI rather than a serious interest in using it. I guess we'll see.

Incidentially I do work for a large corporation btw. But that doesnt prevent me from sympathizing with TPB and finding their cat'n mouse games with the content industry most entertaining...

I don't doubt TPB has a certain reputation, but it's the term "edge of the law" I find disagreeable. How can you have such a term about a company that is completely law abiding?

They host torrents, it's legal, it's not on the edge of anything, Swedish law says they can.

You may be right however that ICANN would consider TPB "the bad boy", but I hope they treat everyone fairly despite of what they may or may not think of them (on that note IFPI probably doesn't have the favour of many geeks).

Originally posted by Hinton:I don't doubt TPB has a certain reputation, but it's the term "edge of the law" I find disagreeable. How can you have such a term about a company that is completely law abiding?

They host torrents, it's legal, it's not on the edge of anything, Swedish law says they can.

Legal for the time being. But remember that laws are dynamic. They can be changed by politicians and politicians can be influenced by special interest groups. Groups like IFPI...

I remember that the swedish police was quite quick on the trigger when somebody in the ministry of justice wanted TPB raided a while back. Nothing came out of it of course, but it does demonstrate that there are forces even within Sweden that wouldnt hesitate a second busting them if it was possible.

No I would definitely not call TPB "completely law abiding". They are going right to the limit with little safety margin. Just within the law, but only just. For now.